Simplified Definition for Dimensions

[Momokamaru]

My sister and I noticed the dimensions page doesn't make it clear what definition of dimension are we using. The geometric definition (size) or the scientific definition (physics) because they are fundamentally different.

From the dimension's page:

The official scientific definition of a Dimension is an axis of movement, such as height, length, and width.

However it then proceeds to contradict itself and say a line only has length. Length is not an axis of movement, it's a unit of measurement. Why mix up the two definitions?

If we are using the scientific definition, why does half of the staff tell people we use the geometric definition?

According to some staff, we only consult physics to define the different theories of a multiverse but our definition of dimension is the definition of size. So...what's the deal?

Sera explained it to me this way:

The geometric definition of a dimension is a unit of measurement. Length, width, height, etc. Destroying a building is more impressive than destroying a rock because a building is bigger. This doesn't stop with higher dimensions. Destroying an 8-dimensional world is more impressive than destroying a 7-dimensional one because it is bigger. Geometrically speaking, this is the most simple way to look at the VSB tiering system rather than going by the scientific definition. The scientific definition of dimension is an axis of movement, a direction. We have three spaces around us: up and down, front and rear, left and right). We can move up and down, northeast and northwest, the other direction of movement within three-dimensional space axis to express. Moving down is equal to the negative direction to move up, moving northwest to just west and northward to move. In physics , the time is the fourth dimension, and three space dimension is different, it is only one, and can only move in one direction.
	~ Sera Loveheart​

Here is the geometric definition:

Here's the physics definition:

It also seems to mention the concept of a Hausdorff dimension. What's the deal? All this does is cause confusion. Which definition are we using?

 

[VenomElite]

Who knows. They definitions are similar in princple but mechanically different.

I only refer to M-Theory and String Theory to define measurements of hypothetical multiverses, they however use complex dimensionality and not simple geometry that shows you basically why planet busting is superior to small planet busting. One's bigger and requires more effort/output to destroy. Simple.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

This is an excellent post.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I agree that we need to clarify that we use geometrical dimensions.

 

[Sera_EX]

If I knew you were going to make a thread I would've explained it to you in English...

 

[TISSG7Redgrave]

wow this is pretty amazing O_O

 

[VenomElite]

If I knew you were going to make a thread I would've explained it to you in English...

She translated the original quote, it's not that bad.

 

[Yumi-tan]

Geometric dimensional measurement

þ¡Õ║ª´╝îÕÅêþ¿▒þ¡µò©´╝îµÿ»µò©Õ¡©õ©¡þì¿þ½ïÕÅâµò©þÜäµò©þø«ÒÇéÕ£¿þë®þÉåÕ¡©ÕÆîÕô▓Õ¡©þÜäÚáÿÕƒƒÕິ╝îµîçþì¿þ½ïþÜäµÖéþ®║ÕØɵ¿ÖþÜäµò©þø«ÒÇé 0þ¡µÿ»õ©ÇÚ╗×´╝îµ▓Ƶ£ëÚòÀÕ║ªÒÇé1þ¡µÿ»þÀÜ´╝îÕŬµ£ëÚòÀÕ║ªÒÇé2þ¡µÿ»õ©ÇÕÇïÕ╣│ÚØó´╝îµÿ»þö▒ÚòÀÕ║ªÕÆîÕ»¼Õ║ª(µêûµø▓þÀÜ)Õ¢óµêÉÚØóþ®ìÒÇé3þ¡µÿ»2þ¡Õèáõ©èÚ½ÿÕ║ªÕ¢óµêÉÒÇîÚ½öþ®ìÚØóÒÇìÒÇéÚøûþäÂÕ£¿õ©ÇÞê¼õ║║õ©¡þ┐Ƶàúõ║åµò┤µò©þ¡´╝îõ¢åÕ£¿þóÄÕ¢óõ©¡þ¡Õ║ªõ©ìõ©Çիܵÿ»µò┤µò©´╝îÕÅ»Þ⢵£âµÿ»õ©ÇÕÇïÚØ×µò┤þÜäµ£ëþÉåµò©µêûÞÇàþäíþÉåµò©ÒÇé

Scientific dimensional axis. Referring to spatial dimension. Directions but not a measurement of size. But tier system uses energy scale....

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Energy measured in joules becomes meaningless in Tier 2, Yeul.

 

[Momokamaru]

@Yumi

We have four dimensions (three space axes and one time axis), according to Einstein's concept called four-dimensional space-time, our universe is composed of time and space, and this time axis is a virtual Numerical axis. Some theories predict that the universe we live in actually has more dimensions (usually 10, 11, or 24). But these additional dimensions measure the size of the subatomic universe.

So, geometrically speaking, it's not very impressive. Any side measurement in String Theory can be Bleach Soul Society size.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

@Momo

Yeah, in real life dimensions are nothing like fiction such as how the Cthulhu Mythos, Umineko, I/O, Dark Tower or DC Comics portray them.

 

[Yumi-tan]

@Momo

Metaphysical object has no measurement. Practically it is measured same as it's partner dimension. Soul society 3-dimensional side measurement, just on a different "plane". Strings actually are measured to be quite small. Difference.

 

[Momokamaru]

That's a physical dimension, Yeul.

 

[Yumi-tan]

Tier system uses energy. In physics , different physical quantities have different units , but units have a relationship with each other. In practice, is appropriate to specify some basic units (called basic units) that allow any other unit (called derived unit) to be expressed as the product of these units and be unified to facilitate the study of relationship between the individual quantities. Such as in the international unit system , the power of the unit Joule (J), It may be expressed as " kg square yards per square seconds " (kg m^2/s^2).

That is not anything to do with geometric dimension.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

@Yumi

Yes, but that's Tier 3 only. High 3-A is Infinite Joules.

 

[Yumi-tan]

Okie.

 

[Yumi-tan]

Why is system based on multiple practices? Energy, physical dimension, geometric size...that is not convenient.

 

[Sera_EX]

I'm not sure. As Ven said, we should only refer to multidimensional theories to define levels of the multiverse. Size and energy go perfectly together so our system works best if we use the geometric definition.

 

[Momokamaru]

@Yeul

Staff here have argued over temporal dimensions not too long ago. Temporal dimensions are different than spatial (physical) dimensions which are in itself different than a simple measurement like length or height. So we have a massive problem.

 

[Yumi-tan]

Ugh. Just go by size and call it a day.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I think we just have to use the simplest possible explanations and definitions. We are often mocked for being pseudo-intellectuals and using word sallads and technobabble in explanations, and the detractors have a point.

 

[VenomElite]

You girls are ignoring speed.

 

[Momokamaru]

Nope.

 

[Sera_EX]

No. ACF uses the geometric definition and their speed levels are defined excellently.

 

[VenomElite]

I'm just making sure they are keeping speed in mind.

 

[Yumi-tan]

FTL technically impossible, so any speed above relativity is artistic, you can't pretend to be genius and define imaginary levels. That's crazy.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

FTL technically impossible, so any speed above relativity is artistic, you can't pretend to be genius and define imaginary levels. That's crazy.

I can't express how right you are.

 

[Sera_EX]

I can't express how right you are.

I agree with Yeul 110%

 

[VenomElite]

I agree with Yeul also, too, as well.

 

[Hat_mchat]

Sorry for butting in, but regarding FTL: while it isn't technically what we consider 'motion', the spacetime around an object can be warped in such a way to allow for 'speeds' that are FTL. If spacetime in front of an object is contracted via strong gravitational distortion of spacetime by for example a gravitational singularity and behind the object spacetime is expanded by means of negative energy, or less than zero point energy through use of 'exotic matter', the object can ride a localised 'wave' of spacetime to permit what an outside observer would view as motion.

While altogether unrelated to the thread and probably not useful in anyway, i was just pointing out a mechanism that allows for FTL travel. All this talk of spacetime distortion can be calculated using Einstein's field equations for spacetime curvature. A below vacuum energy value leads to expanded spacetime. (Probably been brought up before anyway and shot down)

Anyway sorry for interrupting also i think that geometrical dimensions are just the vague structure for scientific dimensions as in they are fundamentally the same, but science just applied it to the real world.

 

[CrackerVolley]

And this is why I like staying out of the more higher tier vs threads, none of this makes sense...

 

[Sera_EX]

They are not. Explain how length is an axis of movement.

Explain how you can measure a human body but not measure a direction like forwards and backwards (unless movement is involved).

 

[Hat_mchat]

Like i said, scientific dimensions are more of an application of geometrical dimensions to the real world rather than exactly the same. Fundamentally i would say they are comparable. For example, length is a measurement of extension in lets just call it the first dimension. A line has length, but no width. A square has length and width, but no height. A cube has length, width and height, but no extension in time. A tesseract had length, width, height and temporal extension, but nothing beyond etc.

By the way i have no idea what i'm rambling on about, I'm still in school and use big words to sound clevererer.

 

[VenomElite]

And this is why I like staying out of the more higher tier vs threads, none of this makes sense...

It's far simplier than we've made it.

 

[Sera_EX]

Like i said, scientific dimensions are more of an application of geometrical dimensions to the real world rather than exactly the same. Fundamentally i would say they are comparable. For example, length is a measurement of extension in lets just call it the first dimension. A line has length, but no width. A square has length and width, but no height. A cube has length, width and height, but no extension in time. A tesseract had length, width, height and temporal extension, but nothing beyond etc.

By the way i have no idea what i'm rambling on about, I'm still in school and use big words to sound clevererer.

Hehe. They are comparable yes, but the page itself needs to be rewritten with better clarifications. Btw, if you wanna ramble, we can talk any time x3

 

[Yumi-tan]

Hmm....

 

[Kaltias]

I thought that we use the geometrical version because in physics the whole "lower dimensional objects can't affect higher dimensional objects" reasoning works differently (for example any real life object distorts space-time due to its mass)

 

[Hat_mchat]

Hmm....

I must say, this is quite an enlightening response, i have now gone through the gate at the ultimate void, reached nirvana and understand everything.

Truly i am blessed

 

[A6colute]

FTL technically impossible

Hmmm...

 

[Hat_mchat]

Spacetime is a local thing by the way, distorting temporally local spacetime is not the same as distorting time itself as that would be more of a universal thing. Think of it as bending a slice of universe spacetime cake, though the slice is infinitely thin.